Google is "Blind" about Relevancy - Proofs | Warrior Forum - The #1 Digital Marketing Forum & Marketplace

17 years ago

Thanks for the great video presentation!

I just don't think relevancy is a bad idea, even if Google is blind on relevancy... However, that will take Google a lot of resources to process all those pages!

You are right, Google will resolve this problem when hardware cost drop and processing power up again! I will build most back links from authority sites, relevant or not is not my concern at this moment but relevancy is always a good choice... what if one day Google implement it?

I think relevancy is natural between blogs. If you want to comment, why not make it relevant and attract targeted traffic?

Relevant = Targeted traffic

- Kok Choon

Thanks

Signature

Powerful Indexer That Makes Your Backlinks Count ==> Nuclear Link Indexer

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1102664].message }}

iblbuilder

17 years ago

Relevancy is something google scream about, but it is a bit of a smokescreen to cover up the fact that they cannot monitor it as well as people think they can.

Thanks

Signature

BOOSITES: Premium Web 2.0 Blog Builder

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1102763].message }}

Designerplus

17 years ago

Actually Matt Cutts said it very recently - there are two factors Google look at
1) Relevancy
2) Reputation

If you have high reputation you can outrank someone with less relevancy by just including those keywords in your post. Of course, if someone has high relevancy and someone has very low relevancy but high reputation the more relevant one will rank.

BUT... if there is very little reputation and medium to low relevancy for results for a keyword and there is a site with very high reputation and low relvancy then that one will outrank the others.

You need to be going for relevance AND reputation to rank. Obviously if two sites are relevant the one with higher reputation wins every time.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1102861].message }}

freetraff

17 years ago

I also watched this video where Matt said it - great vid by the way. Those who have not seen it go to Matt Cutts: Gadgets, Google, and SEO - this is one of the recent posts.

But there is sometimes difference between what Matt is saying and what Google can realistically do. I remember years ago Matt was saying a lot about solving the problem with paid links - years have passed, paid links did not vanish

In any case - those who watched the video attentively will hear that I am for relevancy. And I am completely for getting backlinks from the relevant sites. However I do it DESPITE the fact that Google is still pretty "blind" about relevancy, not because of "the almighty Google sees all and will punish"

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Get Unlimited Fans For Your Facebook Fan Page Quickly
http://www.FansGrower.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1102995].message }}

Stephen Crooks

17 years ago

All very interesting but I haven't seen any actual proof in those videos just some speculation. How about showing some actual examples of this sort of irrelevant anchor text in action please?

My own testing shows that as always with Google there is no black and white answer to relevancy from anchor text. I have had sites indexed reasonably high before with some irrelevant anchor text from irrelevant sites and other sites not. I can also say the opposite is true. I have also had sites ranked fairly high with just 1 or 2 backlinks with no anchor text.

It's a vague bunch of test results but then that's Google for you!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Affiliate Marketing Profits 2020 - Step by Step Guides
How to Make $100 a day Online

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1103050].message }}

dburk

17 years ago

Hi freetraff,

Another well put together video, however your primary assertion is totally wrong and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Google scores relevancy in my opinion.

First and foremost Google does not view relevancy as an absolute value. This is something many people seem to fail to grasp though there is ample evidence that demonstrates this fact. To keep it very simple let's say that a page can be range from highly relevant to somewhat relevant.

The primary factors that Google uses to determine relevancy scores include page titles and anchor text. It's virtually impossible to rank for a keyword without having relevant text on-page and/or links from relevant pages.

I'm sorry to say that your assertion that Google is blind to relevancy is absurd. You can get all the backlinks you want and if they are from irrelevant pages you will never rank for a keyword unless there is relevant text on your page. A backlink will not help you rank for a keyword if there is no relevant text on the linking page.

Only if you can get your targeted keyword on the page will it help you rank. That is why it is critical to use keywords in or near your anchor text. By adding your keyword to the linking page you are making that page relevant. Without this added relevance you get no benefit for a particular keyword from your backlink, unless of course the linking page is already relevant to your keyword.

Now back to the notion of relevancy as an absolute rather than a relative value. If you view relevancy as an absolute value, then a page that contains your keyword in the anchor text would be considered absolutely relevant. This makes your claim that Google is "Blind" about relevancy absolutely false.

As I asserted previously, Google clearly does not view relevancy as an absolute value but a relative value. Therefore, backlinks from pages that are more relevant benefit you more than pages that are less relevant. Pages with no relevance to a keyword give you no benefit towards ranking for that keyword. If this wasn't true then Google's SERPs would give very poor results.

I challenge you to show me one example where anyone ranks for a keyword with no relevant text and backlinks from pages also with no relevant text.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1103302].message }}

The Expert

17 years ago

After watching both videos I'm left a bit confused.

You say to keep "relevancy" in the back of your mind while building backlinks as they will soon have a way to efficiently scrub their index for it in the near future.

But are you saying that links gained through the FTS system are or are not going to be relative?

The blog posts go out into the network with your links pointing back at your site....but there is a collage of topics on the blog it appears on.

Will your content itself wrap a shroud of relevancy around your link or will the diverse aspect of the blog it appears on as a whole cause issues?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1103425].message }}

kkchoon

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Steve Crooks

All very interesting but I haven't seen any actual proof in those videos just some speculation. How about showing some actual examples of this sort of irrelevant anchor text in action please?

My own testing shows that as always with Google there is no black and white answer to relevancy from anchor text. I have had sites indexed reasonably high before with some irrelevant anchor text from irrelevant sites and other sites not. I can also say the opposite is true. I have also had sites ranked fairly high with just 1 or 2 backlinks with no anchor text.

It's a vague bunch of test results but then that's Google for you!

Hi Steve,

One good example for non-relevant back links is Angela Backlinks. All links from high authority site but not relevant in anyway.

I still suspect relevant links would give it a bit more juice, but my experience with High PR backlinks tells me they are very effective...

- Kok Choon

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Powerful Indexer That Makes Your Backlinks Count ==> Nuclear Link Indexer

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1103625].message }}

dburk

17 years ago

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Hi Steve,

One good example for non-relevant back links is Angela Backlinks. All links from high authority site but not relevant in anyway.

I still suspect relevant links would give it a bit more juice, but my experience with High PR backlinks tells me they are very effective...

- Kok Choon

Hi kkchoon,

Angela's backlinks won't help you rank for a keyword if that keyword is not on the page. You have to add you keyword to the page, making that page relevant before you will get any benefit of ranking for your keyword. If the page isn't relevant it wont help you rank, period.

I challenge you to show me one page that ranks for a keyword with no relevant text either on the page itself or the pages that link to it. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, just I have never seen it.

Thanks

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1103664].message }}

Stephen Crooks

17 years ago

That is not really the same thing as what the videos were describing. The sort of high PR sites that are on Angelas backlinks are admittedly irrelevant to the sites we are promoting (probably).

However, these videos go a couple of steps further by saying that the anchor text is the only factor in getting the site they are pointing to indexed. In the example every anchor text is organic gardening pointing to a page on body building with no mention of organic gardening on it at all. Not in the title, url, content, meta stuff but the page will rank highly for the keyword organic gardening.. I need to see some proof of this because I just don't believe that is possible.

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Hi Steve,

One good example for non-relevant back links is Angela Backlinks. All links from high authority site but not relevant in anyway.

I still suspect relevant links would give it a bit more juice, but my experience with High PR backlinks tells me they are very effective...

- Kok Choon

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Affiliate Marketing Profits 2020 - Step by Step Guides
How to Make $100 a day Online

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1103679].message }}

dburk

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Steve Crooks

That is not really the same thing as what the videos were describing. The sort of high PR sites that are on Angelas backlinks are admittedly irrelevant to the sites we are promoting (probably).

However, these videos go a couple of steps further by saying that the anchor text is the only factor in getting the site they are pointing to indexed. In the example every anchor text is organic gardening pointing to a page on body building with no mention of organic gardening on it at all. Not in the title, url, content, meta stuff but the page will rank highly for the keyword organic gardening.. I need to see some proof of this because I just don't believe that is possible.

Hi Steve,

It's been well documented that a page can rank high for a keyword that's not on that page. The relevancy of a page is partly determined by the anchor text of links toward that page.

One of the most popular examples of this is Adobe Acrobat Reader which ranks very high for the term "click here" even though it doesn't exist anywhere on the page. Just google "click here" and see for yourself.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1103723].message }}

Stephen Crooks

17 years ago

True, but that isn't really a good example. The whole page is filled with Adobe, Microsoft, xe.com, apple.. These guys are unbeatable, in fact only google themselves could beat them.

I fully understand the importance of anchor text and how it helps to rank a page so that isn't an issue. However, I would still love to see proof of something in the realms of a bodybuilding page ranking highly for the keyword phrase "organic gardening"..

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi Steve,

It's been well documented that a page can rank high for a keyword that's not on that page. The relevancy of a page is partly determined by the anchor text of links toward that page.

One of the most popular examples of this is Adobe Acrobat Reader which ranks very high for the term "click here" even though it doesn't exist anywhere on the page. Just google "click here" and see for yourself.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Affiliate Marketing Profits 2020 - Step by Step Guides
How to Make $100 a day Online

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1103949].message }}

dburk

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Steve Crooks

True, but that isn't really a good example. The whole page is filled with Adobe, Microsoft, xe.com, apple.. These guys are unbeatable, in fact only google themselves could beat them.

I fully understand the importance of anchor text and how it helps to rank a page so that isn't an issue. However, I would still love to see proof of something in the realms of a bodybuilding page ranking highly for the keyword phrase "organic gardening"..

Hi Steve,

Why would you say it "isn't really a good example"? I think it's an excellent example. It demonstrates perfectly how anchor text that isn't relevant to the actual target pages's content is a factor in ranking. Google's algorithm works exactly the same regardless of the topic.

Google's SERP is ranked first and foremost by relevancy. If that page didn't have all those backlinks that use "click here" as the anchor text it wouldn't show anywhere in the SERP for that search term.

Any page can rank very high for any term if there are enough backlinks that use the term in the anchor text. Obviously it much easier if the on page content is also relevant.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1104025].message }}

Stephen Crooks

17 years ago

I have no doubt that anchor text plays a major part in ranking for that keyword phrase, I am not arguing that point. However, in absense of any on page SEO (what sites really optimise for the phrase "Click here"?) then anchor text is bound to prevail.

Also, their is a bit of LSI involved here as well. For instance, search for the phrase "download here" and the same suspects pretty much show up for that phrase as well. I don't think anybody can argue that adobe, microsoft and the others don't deserve to rank for the phrase "download here". It certainly could be argued that "click here" could have the same semantics as "download here". Obviously they are not identical in meaning but they are synonymous in the way that they are common phrases used for taking action on a webpage.

I still think that is miles away from the example of organic gardening and bodybuilding.

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi Steve,

Why would you say it "isn't really a good example"? I think it's an excellent example. It demonstrates perfectly how anchor text that isn't relevant to the actual target pages's content is a factor in ranking. Google's algorithm works exactly the same regardless of the topic.

Google's SERP is ranked first and foremost by relevancy. If that page didn't have all those backlinks that use "click here" as the anchor text it wouldn't show anywhere in the SERP for that search term.

Any page can rank very high for any term if there are enough backlinks that use the term in the anchor text. Obviously it much easier if the on page content is also relevant.

Thanks

Signature

Affiliate Marketing Profits 2020 - Step by Step Guides
How to Make $100 a day Online

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1104123].message }}

halfpoint

17 years ago

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Hi Steve,

One good example for non-relevant back links is Angela Backlinks. All links from high authority site but not relevant in anyway.

I still suspect relevant links would give it a bit more juice, but my experience with High PR backlinks tells me they are very effective...

- Kok Choon

Kok,

When you leave your links on the sites in Angela's packets they become relevant. That's what Don is saying.

For example, lets say you are trying to rank for the keyword "online dating"

Although the site from Angela's packet you're going to be leaving your link on may not have anything to do with online dating, when you leave your link with the anchor text "online dating" that page then becomes partially relevant to that term.

Obviously if you were leaving your anchor text link on a site that was actually about dating then it would have more relevance, however, once you leave your anchor text on any page, even if the site has NOTHING to do with your site, the page becomes somewhat relevant.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1103764].message }}

Joe118

17 years ago

I don't have any proof for this either way, but qualitatively I find that ranking is easier if the text immediately around the back link on the linking page also contains your keyword. In other words, I am agreeing with Pat. The reasoning is simple: as you add some more text to that page, it becomes relevant for the keyword, and if that keyword also occurs in the outgoing link's anchor text (and title, for good measure) then it's a page + link that are relevant for that keyword. This will push the target page higher for the keyword.

Now with that said, extreme examples like the Bush Failure google bomb have been defused. But other bombs such as several non-english ones are still active and successful. So it's a work in progress. And if you do things carefully and not extremely, there is a very good success rate.

By the way, what Angela's advice amounts to is google-bombing the target pages for the keyword you want to rank for. She advises to never vary the anchor text. This is successful only because presumably you *are* interested in relevancy match between the anchor text and the target page, so your keyword will very likely also be on the target page.

Originally Posted by Pat Jackson

Kok,

When you leave your links on the sites in Angela's packets they become relevant. That's what Don is saying.

For example, lets say you are trying to rank for the keyword "online dating"

Although the site from Angela's packet you're going to be leaving your link on may not have anything to do with online dating, when you leave your link with the anchor text "online dating" that page then becomes partially relevant to that term.

Obviously if you were leaving your anchor text link on a site that was actually about dating then it would have more relevance, however, once you leave your anchor text on any page, even if the site has NOTHING to do with your site, the page becomes somewhat relevant.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1105428].message }}

Daniel Molano

17 years ago

I've been saying this for months now and I'll say it again.

The only relevance the Google algorithm really takes into account is the anchor text of the backlinks, not the source. Everything else is a bluff.

As for on site SEO, having the keyword around helps, but it's not necessary.

They do however care about the reputation (authority) of the backlink source.

And I have "impossible" rankings to back up my statement.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Como Ganar Dinero Por Internet - Spanish Make Money Online Site

Daniel Molano - LinkedIn Profile

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1103850].message }}

Stephen Crooks

17 years ago

I don't think that is the issue with all due respect Daniel.. In fact I agree with what you are saying. The big issue here is the point that was made that a page on bodybuilding can rank highly for the keyword phrase "organic gardening" purely because of the anchor text pointing to it. I haven't seen any real proof of that.

Originally Posted by Daniel Molano

I've been saying this for months now and I'll say it again.

The only relevance Google really takes into account (their algorithm) is the anchor text of the damn backlinks, not the source. Everything else is a bluff.

As for on site SEO, having the keyword around helps, but it's not necessary.

They do however care about the reputation (authority) of the source.

And I have "impossible" rankings to back up my statement.

Thanks

Signature

Affiliate Marketing Profits 2020 - Step by Step Guides
How to Make $100 a day Online

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1103958].message }}

Floyd Bogart

17 years ago

What works is what works and that is all that matters...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

WSO! - Blogging Backlink Bonanza - WSO!
Compare The Two Top Blog Carnival Submitters
100 Premium Domains - Each With 50 Backlinks on 4 Keywords

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1104299].message }}

Intrepreneur

17 years ago

I wathced the second video and have retracted what I said earlier. This seems like it's just the Google bomb theory arising again. People know the Google bombing still exists, and it's something that has been talked about before but if Google really wanted to stop coutning backlinks that don't have the keywords in then they could do that, but they haven't yet.. and it's been a long time going this topic of interest..

Me thinks Google won't change anything in the forseeable future except giving us more clues as to how we can practice proper SEO>

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

SEO, copywriting and backlinks service UK

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1104401].message }}

Julian Lockhart

17 years ago

First of all watch out for anyone who says I have proof. If anything it's an example.

It's important to get that the more authority you have the more trust you get.

I have a "case study".

I have a customer that wants to rank for a KW and I was sizing up his competition. I did notice one website that had really good links (pr4, some gov, etc) BUT not one single anchor text had one of the kw's in it.

His on page SEO is pretty bad and he's ranked #4.

So what's my point?

It clear that you get points for:
Reputation/ Authority and
Relevancy

We just don't know the exact formula.

So what do you do? Get links from relevant sites that have authority.

I believe that if you get a link from an authority site that is not relevant it still boosts your reputation.

One other thing. There are no short cutts.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sarasota Web Design

Biz Launch Box - Marketing Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1104891].message }}

Daniel Molano

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Julian Lockhart

So what do you do? Get links from relevant sites that have authority.

Well that's the thing, you can't afford to do that.

If people stick to believing in the "relevant site" myth, then the competition that doesn't is always 10 steps ahead.

Such people skip on PR6+ backlinks for example, just because they have no relevance.

And that's simply leaving money on the table.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Como Ganar Dinero Por Internet - Spanish Make Money Online Site

Daniel Molano - LinkedIn Profile

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1104968].message }}

Julian Lockhart

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Molano

If people stick to believing in the "relevant site" myth, then the competition that doesn't is always 10 steps ahead.
Such people skip on PR6+ backlinks for example, just because they have no relevance.

Agreed - how else did my clients competitor get ranked? It certainly wasn't from well placed anchor text or great on page SEO.

Authority Hi PR backlinks will boost your authority and then any other factors(relevant kw anchors, on page seo, etc) will be boosted.

It's like D&D (or some other role playing game) - if you become a level 18 wizard all of your spells are stronger. Experience point are experience points.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sarasota Web Design

Biz Launch Box - Marketing Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1105066].message }}

dburk

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Julian Lockhart

Agreed - how else did my clients competitor get ranked? It certainly wasn't from well placed anchor text or great on page SEO.

Authority Hi PR backlinks will boost your authority and then any other factors(relevant kw anchors, on page seo, etc) will be boosted.

It's like D&D (or some other role playing game) - if you become a level 18 wizard all of your spells are stronger. Experience point are experience points.

Hi Julian,

I love the theory Google's algorithm is loosely based on Dungeons & Dragons, nice analogy. If it were true then nearly all searches would turn up the exact same websites over and over. Since this isn't the case I have to conclude that Google actually ranks pages based on relevance, and only considers authority when relevance is roughly equal. At least that is what I see in the actual search results.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1105279].message }}

Julian Lockhart 17 years ago

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi Julian,

I love the theory Google's algorithm is loosely based on Dungeons & Dragons, nice analogy.

That's not quite my point. Although I do like it when my PR goes up!

What I am simply saying is any type of link (relevant or not) from a trusted high PR site gives a site more trust.

And this trust (high PR) is what has some pages rank higher even when they don't have the best on page seo or backlinks.

I do not discount relevancy

Originally Posted by Julian Lockhart
So what do you do? Get links from relevant sites that have authority.

Just don't pass-up links from high PR sites based on relevancy. They do add value.
- Thanks
Signature

Sarasota Web Design

Biz Launch Box - Marketing Consultant
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1105549].message }}

Google is "Blind" about Relevancy - Proofs

Trending Topics

Clients Ghosting: Advice please!

Browser-based CPL games -- has anyone come across these?

The Winter Olympics....

Best SEO strategy for wedding venue websites

Help! My domain has been hijacked by a spammer.